Agricultural Policy - A look back at the beginning.

A compelling historical read is sometimes hard to find, but I found "The Worst Hard Time," by Timothy Egan to be a page-turner. It tells the Depression-era tale of the Dust Bowl and the people that stayed on the High Plains during that hopeless time. Eyewitness accounts and historical records tell a story of unfathomable conditions that reigned from 1931 through 1939 when massive "dusters" choked residents and created such static electricity that barbed-wired fences came alive with sparks. Those that remained on the land as it blew away often developed "dust-pneumonia," a respiratory ailment that caused uncontrollable coughing and never entirely went away. As year after year of drought persisted throughout the High Plains, the homesteaders that settled there saw their farms crushed under overwhelming debt loads, low commodity prices, and ton upon ton of blown dirt. It is truly a wonder that the entire region wasn't abandoned completely - yet at least a few of those early towns are still around today.

Chris Johns/National Geographic/Getty Images

While the book is a compelling historical sketch of Dust Bowl survivors, at various points is takes aim at the various policies that influenced settlement in the region - many of which were tied directly to agriculture. As all native Oklahomans know, a fair portion of the state was given away to homesteaders in "land runs," which literally amounted to a foot race for chunks of real estate. Following the notion that "rains follow the plow," these folks that sought a better way of life took their newly-acquired land and began planting. Thus, vast stretches of grassland were pulled into intensive cropping during a time when the High Plains enjoyed a relatively wet period. Against the backdrop of World War I, greater production was urged from the nation's farms to sustain the war effort. Rational-minded homsteaders sought more acres to plow and plant, concluding that larger harvests resulted in larger incomes. And so the settlement of the Plains went until the relatively abundant rains stopped, and the dry years set in.

This era gave rise to some of the first comprehensive policies directed specifically to the support of agriculture. For example, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 is typically considered to be the "original" farm bill and introduced the concept of commodity price supports. Congress and the Roosevelt Administration continued to churn out agricultural-specific legislation during the Dust Bowl years, tinkering with price and income support for farmers and eventually creating various conservation programs. Some of this legislation remains relevant to this day, such as the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, a "permanent" Act that has been continually amended to meet the issues of the times.

Aside from being a fascinating tale of incredibly difficult times, it gave me pause to think about the convictions of those settlers and the reasons that they chose to make a go of it on the grassy plains. The individual desire to claim a piece of the American Dream coupled with misinformed agricultural ideology led many folks into a situation that became impossible to escape. Whether or not you agree with Egan's none-to-subtle criticisms of the policies that saw the grasslands of the High Plains turned to crop production, the Dust Bowl exists as a fact in agricultural history. More importantly, this period of American history lives on in the various federal and state farm programs that influence the production of food and fiber.

For many, it has become easy to criticize government support of farmers and ranchers as an expensive welfare system that benefits too few. Yet, this same domestic support system unquestionably sustains one of the most abundant and affordable food supplies in the world. As with any policy, it is subject to change when new information makes older beliefs obsolete. Whether intentional or not, what Egan captured exceedingly well in the book was the adaptation of agricultural policy in the face of better understanding. Would the Dust Bowl have occurred if the High Plains been left in grass for grazing livestock instead of tilled for crops? Maybe or maybe not.

Having traveled extensively throughout the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles, I found "The Worst Hard Time" to offer a candid glimpse into the soul of the region - scarred, but resilient. Egan's tale should be required reading for anyone in the position to influence and shape agricultural policy. No view of the future is worthwhile unless it is informed by the experiences of the past. Of course, besides being a fascinating bit of history, this book also makes a fine companion to John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath."

Oklahoma Chicken Litter Lawsuit - Update

As has previously been posted on this blog, and reported in other media, the State of Oklahoma is suing chicken processors, alleging that application of chicken litter from chicken houses controlled by the companies has damaged watersheds in Oklahoma.

Rod Smith of Feedstuffs reports that the presiding judge in that case has ruled that one of the State's experts, Auburn professor Robert Taylor, can testify that the poultry companies have known that chicken litter was being over-applied, and that the companies have also known that the over-application of the chicken litter damages watersheds.

The big-picture issue that this case will decide is whether or not chicken litter, and therefore other animal wastes, can be considered "solid waste." Such a designation would make livestock operations subject to the Superfund Act (CERCLA), as well as the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).

This case is just another example of our culture's changing views of agriculture.

Cellulosic Ethanol Expansion

As I have mentioned in previous posts, technologies involved in the production of biofuels are constantly evolving and improving. Cellulosic ethanol has received a lot of press in recent years because it has the potential for higher ethanol yields, and it quells the food v. fuel debate that has surrounded corn-based ethanol. The knock has always been that the technology was not where it needed to be for it to compete with corn-based ethanol, however.

As evidence that cellulosic ethanol is headed towards large-scale commercialization, Feedstuffs reports that Gulf Alternative Energy Corp. has agreed to purchase an ethanol plant in Iowa ("Biofuels Buzz" Feedstuffs, August 17, 2009 pg. 14). Gulf plans on converting the plant to into a cellulosic ethanol plant, which will use corn stover, cobs, switchgrass, and animal waste products as feedstocks.

Field Burning: The Times, They Are A-changin'

The burning of residues left in the field after harvest has been practiced by farmers for many years (Wikipedia says it is approximately 10,000 years). Burning can make field prep easier next spring, and it helps control plant diseases that can over-winter in crop residues. I can vividly remember burning wheat stubble for Charlie Moses, who hired me to help irrigate his small farm of approximately 80 acres just west of Blackfoot, Idaho where I grew up. I was given a handful of matches and told to ride my motorcycle through the field. I lit matches on the gas tank or handle bars of the motorcycle and threw them into the stubble as I rode. By the time I got to the end of the field, if I had done my job correctly, I was being followed by a raging inferno which consumed the stubble, and nearly consumed me and my old Yamaha MX 175.

As times have changed, so have people's attitudes about field burning. North Carolina has recently updated its rules on agricultural burning (click here for the press release). The American Agricultural Law Association also recently posted the details of ag burning legislation in Idaho on its blog. Of course, the aim of these rules and statutes is to curb ag burning.

In North Carolina, a memorandum of understanding between the state Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture set new guidelines for burning. The North Carolina Department of the Environment's website does not reveal the extent of the new regulations, and I don't have time at the moment to research in depth what the regulations actually say. But it probably isn't a stretch to assume that it is now more difficult to burn crop residues in North Carolina.

Renewable Energy and Biomass Transport

One of the obstacles to large scale bioenergy production is getting the biomass feedstock from the farm to the plant, whether it be the power plant, the refinery, etc. Transportation costs, if not held in check, can make an otherwise profitable operation unfeasible. The bulk of biomass and it's low energy density can make transportation uneconomical. The assumption used by experts in the field is that the maximum distance which biomass can be economically hauled is 50 miles. Anything outside of 50 miles and the costs simply become too great.

The Southwest Farm Press reports that Texas A&M is working on developing new methods for transporting biomass, specifically energy sorghum. Their work so far has concentrated on using cotton harvest equipment, specifically module builders. The sorghum is harvested and put into a silage wagon in the field. The wagon then takes the sorghum to a module builder at the end of the field, where it is compressed into a module and encased in a protective cover for transport.

One quote from the article by Dr. Bill Rooney indicated the future of their research:

"While we are using cotton equipment to prove the concept, new machines optimized for energy biomass will be needed."

I have no doubt that dedicated equipment could probably do the job better than machinery that was originally designed for handling other crops and materials. However, growers may well be skittish about making a large investment in equipment to grow a crop that is currently unproven. When energy crop production becomes common, there will be a place for specialized equipment, but until that time, let's hope that growers can learn to make effective use of the equipment that is already in their sheds.

Oklahoma Chicken Litter Lawsuit

The poultry litter litigation in Oklahoma is still heading towards a trial date of September 21, 2009 in the Northern District of Oklahoma. This litigation has been contentious and complex, as evidenced by the docket sheet of over 2400 entries. (State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., Case Number 4:05-cv-329)

It appears that the last few weeks have been busy for Judge Gregory Frizell. He has reviewed various motions for summary judgement, and well as various Daubert motions filed by both sides. There is no written order as of yet on either the Daubert motions or the motions for summary judgement. I will check PACER later to see if Judge Fritzell issues written opinions. However, it is clear that the Defendants succeeded in blocking some of the experts the State of Oklahoma was planning to call. One of the excluded witnesses, Dr. Walerie Harwood, was going to testify about a biological fingerprint that could track bacteria to poultry. the defendants have claimed throughout the case that liability cannot be proven because there is no way to know of the true source of any bacteria found in water.

Daubert motions are filed by attorneys to block expert witnesses from testifying. Without going into too much detail, Daubert motions require the court to act as a gatekeeper, and to prevent untested scientific theories from influencing the outcome of the trial. When deciding a Daubert motion, the court looks at various factors to decide if the expert testimony is based on sound science. The factors include whether or not the methodology used by the expert has been published or otherwise subjected to peer review, the degree to which the technique or theory is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community, the potential rate of error, and the existence of standards of control concerning the operation of the method.

In practice, Daubert motions can be deadly. Having expert witness testimony excluded from trial can be devastating to a case. However, Ron Smith of Feedstuffs reports that the State is saying that their case "remains strong and intact." (Ron Smith, Feedstuffs, Aug. 10, 2009, pg. 3) We may have to wait until trial to see what affect, if any, the Court's order has on the State's case.

Yazoo Backwater Project Generates Litigation

Yesterday's Delta Farm Press alerted me to a new lawsuit filed by the Mississippi Levee Board Commissioners against the E.P.A. The lawsuit seeks to overturn the agency's recent veto under section 404 of the Clean Water Act of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's flood control project in the Mississippi Delta, commonly called the Yazoo Backwater Project. Basically, the project involves installing pumping stations to alleviate flooding that regularly takes place in the Yazoo basin. You can read more about the project here, particularly if you are having issues with insomnia. A shorter explanation of the project can be found here.

Here are the basic facts of the case. The Yazoo Backwater Project was originally authorized by Congress in 1941. The Project was multi-facted, and included floodwalls and other traditional flood-control structures. The capston of the Project was a pumping system which bascially lifts water out of the Yazoo Basin. Because of funding problems, the pumping phase of the project was delayed. In the meantime, the E.P.A. got word, and to make a long story short, vetoed the project pursuant to their authority found in section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act. The E.P.A. contends that the pumping will degrade wetlands found in the Yazoo Basin. (If you are curious as to why the E.P.A. can regulate land under the Clean Water Act, the best advice I can give you is to go to law school, where law professors regularly attempt to explain this dichotomy.)

The lawsuit (you can read the press release and the complaint here) seeks declaratory and injuctive relief. The plaintiffs are seeking an order from the court which declares that the Project is exempt from E.P.A. veto under section 404(r) of the Clean Water Act. Section 404(r) removes veto authority on projects that are specifically authorized by Congress. The Levee Board also seeks to enjoin the E.P.A from doing anything to enforce its 404(c) veto of the project. Lastly, the lawsuit asserts a cause of action of violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Clean Water Act. The claim here is that the Corps did everything it was supposed to do under the Clean Water Act, NEPA, and any other applicable federal law, and yet the E.P.A. still vetoed the project, making E.P.A.'s decision "arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law." Those words are music to the administrative lawyer's ears.

My last comment on this lawsuit is the choice of the plaintiff, which I find interesting. I do not totally understand why the Mississippi Levee Board was chosen as the plaintiff over a landowner or resident of the Yazoo Basin that has been affected by flooding which the Project seeks to alleviate. While I believe that the Levee Board still has standing under Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, I agree with Justice Scalia in his Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife opinions that finding an individual who is affected shouldn't be that hard.

The Plaintiff is represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation.